It's a very definitive split in cognitive reasoning between theists and atheists (or nontheists for those who don't have the stomach for the word atheist /slowjerk) where one exalts the concept of faith and what it means and everything that comes from it, and the other is in stark contrast in that they not only see absolutely no purpose for it (beyond logical assumption such as "I have faith that I have a hand because I see my hand attached to me and I have evidence that my hand exists and my evidence can only go so far in my limited perception of the universe but it's good enough for me") but that they even, in the relative majority I'd say, hold the idea that faith is largely dangerous and damaging on the whole.

This, to me, is the greatest reason why I have difficulty even talking to theists. Getting over this very basic and important first step is largely impossible.

I think this is a crucial point we often under-appreciate. This split is at such a fundamental level that the rhetoric we use amongst ourselves (as atheists) is often completely impenetrable to theists.

This is why you can take almost any Youtube clip of some Dawkins or Hitchens discussion with [notable theist here], and slap either "OMFG DAWKINS = THE SEX" or "EVILUTIONIST GETS DESTROYED" and get praise from either target demographic. Largely, we're just talking past one another.

Except with the notable difference being that we're right and they're wrong. I know the retort (not necessarily from you but from donks in general) is "but hurdurr they say the same thing we're the same hurdurr" but it doesn't matter - we are quantifiably correct and they are not. Therefore we are better than them, and their inability to perceive logic and reason is not a shortcoming we necessarily need to concern ourselves with.

For sure. I agree--I think there's a mistake in observing the structural similarity between us and concluding, "We're the same." Logic and empiricism produce real results in a currency I think all of us can appreciate.

Queue a theist saying, "Well, human life isn't really improved until one accepts God." Okay, I'll be over here enjoying agriculture and medicine, I beseech you to sit on your island and feed your family with faith. (dear Lord, thank you for cyberspace and all of the wonderful porn you provide for me, amen)

But you know, I suspect many theists don the cloak of oh-so-sophisticated metaphysics purely for its rhetorical value. In their day-to-day lives, I suspect they still trust that a pound of organic apples costs $3.07 at their local co-op and that God isn't going to magically dilate the height of an 8-foot overpass if a particularly religious fellow chooses to haul his trailer through town. I feel as though Western theology has evolved to barter in forms of intellectual deceit because their study actually has no substance whatsoever.

I guess all I'm saying is that we should keep on keeping on because fence-sitters might still bear some sensitivity to our arguments and because a world with God in it is kind of shitty. I didn't mean to end my comment with the impression that we should all just shut up and spend our energy molesting the shit out of little boys.

I like a post that starts out making me nod in approval, then has me smiling, and ends with me grinning like an idiot.

You're a font of good posts and thoughts, sir, and I'll be the person to appreciate the fuck out of you and your contribution today. And you can talk to an asshole and he'll say "Nobody appreciates you and you're a dumb!" and you can totally be like "OH WHAT I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER HOW AWESOME MAYNARDFTW THINKS I AM, WHAT, NOW STFU."

Except that you can see your brain in an MRI or other kind of scan. You can see and touch brains that have been removed from bodies donated for such purposes. You can study the brain in intense detail in addition to observing how the reality you observe is consistent with the brain "theory" you are studying. There is abundant evidence you, I, everybody has a brain.

To argue that someone is in a worse position with relation to facts than yourself doesn't demean them, it merely suggests that you think they require improvement. There's nothing wrong with requiring improvement.

Look we have to graduate past this idea that we are being harsh, or too critical... god dammit that is schoolhouse bullshit we are human beings and we don't have time for this petty hurt feeling trash, or let them have their way, give them their holy war, we have to grow up and grab these issues by the balls and scream their name right into their stinking faces. "Enemy" You have a cancer of the mind, its started when you were very young, and you needed that when you were young to feel safe. and that was important, but now you are a grown ass adult, let go of this insane metaphorical security blanket and see the truth its right in your fucking face in between the rape and murder the thievery and drugs, the CORRUPTION, its so stifling and sticky you can hardly breath the fucking air and these people stand back and pretend THEY CANT TASTE IT, on the air and in the water. or perhaps you theists prefer the taste of blood do you not? History would more than coo-berate this assertion. Is it a bit harsh you ask? No it is far removed from the actual definition I reserve for theists and warmongers, their kin? witches all

Well, my sister in law is an ordained Wiccan priestess and I asked her, "You really believe that shit?" and she shrugged and answered, "No." She just does the priestess role to freak out religious fucks and get along with other feminists, of which she is a fierce one and as hetero is part of a minority among fierce feminists in the over fifty crowd but as a witch gets respect for that. She is also solidly anti-war.

So, maybe not all are witches. I suspect some Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clergy also are atheist or at least doubt the existence of gods, yet pretend in the hope that they can do some kind of good in the world.

I think it's better to declare openly and honestly one's view of reality, as I do, but many could present rational arguments to my view.

Apologies in advance for nit picking. Overall your comment is well-put and I agree with you, although I try not to be highly confrontational in conversations unless the person is actively pursuing a political agenda to force their religious views upon everybody.

I agree with you that as adults we should all get past being too harsh or too critical. It is schoolyard ridiculousness. However telling a group of people who are convinced they are the only ones with pure minds and pure intentions that they are corrupt and enjoy the taste of blood won't get anyone anywhere. It's just like when someone - or a group with a religious affiliation - tries to tell an atheist they're corrupt and enjoy the taste of blood. Still I enjoy your point and and your openness to reality and reason. There are not enough people willing to argue the point of reason.

Yeah the thing is it -does- fit, but I can't put my finger on why it irks me. Maybe the insinuation that if we had a God-MRI machine we'd find out he really did exist, or how much it feels like a creationist argument.

Not to suggest you're a creationist or that you're purposely saying "God is real" is the rational default, to be sure.

Do you expect society to react differently based on your "being right"? Do you expect any benefits other then "Hey, my predictions work out better than their predictions" and generally higher utility when it comes to dealing with reality? Because ultimately you do have to contend with the fact that all sides think that they are correct. Of course, this does not mean that the "sides" are equal, but it does mean that, unless you think it's ok for them to be rude to you, you shouldn't be rude to them -- both sides (and any other sides) think that their own side is correct, so if "correctness" were a pass to being rude, all sides would consider themselves justified in being rude.

I agree I can not find it with in myself to forgive such hideous trespasses against the soul of humanity, by a collective theist hive mind, whose effects will be everlasting, and damming to the core of our future. No! I will not forgive you sir or madam I will not ignore the fact and politely sweep its disgusting stench under the davenport. I will tell you I whole heartedly DISAGREE! with you, Part of you is damaged a piece of you is fragmented and lost, for if you had this crucial membrane, or cellular structure deep in your flesh you would know DAMN WELL whats wrong! and why I'm looking at you like I've seen a ghost and blood is rushing away from my face. All these petty responses from the sympathetic nervous system telling me that you are my enemy, you are my sole interference, you destroy that which we might create, or have created forever... and ever with your vicious lack of morality and critical thought process. Your fairy tails will soon encircle and consume us all with its maniacal rants and useless interjections. We want some fucking answers, some real science that can tell us where we are from, not a dusty manuscript from thousands of years ago. How can you believe that you are born on this planet and all of the answers you would ever need on this earth were laid right at your feet bound in leather with golden edged pages. That is a fools heart to entertain such madness

I think this cognitive reasoning is engrained into people when they are very young. This is why most religious ideas fall to the wayside for me, it's just a totally different way of thinking. And vice versa for my religious friends.

That's not an inherent quality in all theists, though. I think the only real stunt that religion will put in a person is fear of damnation...constantly cowering away from secular ideas, or thinking out side of their religious boundaries, or else it will be considered blasphemy. That's why debating with many christians is just impossible, because they cut you off for the reasons of 1.) Not being able to make a sensible counter. and 2.) Its just dangerous thinking, because nonbelievers go to hell.

I was raised in a christian family. and in church. But when presented with something that was just over my head (such as a foreign evolution theory I wasn't familiar with) I didn't use my faith to discredit it.

Faith is a status based on emotion, like love or confidence. People cannot help BUT have faith. We can try to be intellectual and say things like "blah blah no evidence," but that doesn't stop people from having faith. They simply feel it for any number of reasons. Maybe it's because they had a powerful religious experience, or perhaps because they cannot conceive of a world without a God. Maybe religion and faith in a higher power helped the person grapple with a particularly traumatic experience like a death in the family.

Now, the atheist you describe may be thinking, "that's stupid; you have no proof so you shouldn't believe." Well guess what? They DO believe, despite lacking "proof," and that is exactly what faith is all about!

I can totally understand and accept it. Doesn't necessarily make them stupid. There are plenty of religious people who are otherwise brilliant, productive, intelligent members of society. And in much the same way, there are some dropped-on-the-head-stupid atheists out there (I'm thinking of a certain subreddit here, for instance...). As emotional, faulty, inconsistent humans, we can compartmentalize beliefs and simultaneously be smart and dumb in any number of areas. That's how we roll.

Except the quote in this graphic conflates gravity with the theory of gravity, and that's a problem because it misrepresents the issue. No one argues whether gravity exists. It's not a matter of faith. We all observe it.

I understand the need to correct those who use the phrase "just a theory" when referring to science. But let's try to understand what scientific theories are first before correcting others.

There are actually multiple theories of gravity and no firm consensus. General relativity calls for the curvature of spacetime—a concept that is not universally accepted, as many physicists insist that space is flat and gravitation is a force. There are debates about the existence of gravitons, and there are competing quantum gravity theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, supergravity, and many others.

Of course gravity is real. You don't need to be a scientist to accept that fact. However, since there are several theories of gravity, many people do, in fact, choose which one to believe. There simply isn't enough evidence yet to confirm which theory is most likely correct. This includes general relativity. Even NASA's Gravity Probe experiments are debated by physicists as to whether they constitute evidence of spacetime curvature.

I'm having difficulty responding because it seems almost wholly unrelated to what I said; slight relevance to OP, but even then it seems sketchy. It had the word gravity -in- it, but disregarded the comparison of faith vs debate in lieu of centering around whether or not gravity had a solid consensus, which OP never suggested at all.

"the greatest reason why I have difficulty even talking to theists" that's just retarded and arrogant, the idea that you're simply better than another human being just because of your choice of faith, you sound as ignorant and narcissistic as any other theist who oppresses people just because of their religious beliefs.

Content:DanBarker states that the difference between scientists and church services is that scientists don't form groups to validate each others' pre-conceived opinions, which is a sign of intellectual insecurity.

This was posted on R/atheism, a community of atheists who congregate to talk about how ridiculous religion is, how God doesn't exist and how prayer is useless.

Barker also mentions how truth does not require belief. This is as opposed to religions, which are clearly untrue.

There is a difference between belief and faith (which is belief without evidence). Scientists believe loads of stuff. "Gravity is real" is an example of a belief. Without beliefs, they'd have a hard time making educated guesses. These kinds of beliefs are one of the bases of science.

Not to be a buzz-kill here but, epistemologically speaking, all knowledge technically requires faith. I've had many discussions with a particularly hard-headed theist who uses that argument, and unfortunately he is right. There is no true empirical knowledge. At some point you have to just take it on faith. Not that it proves god's existence or anything, but if it were possible to overcome this inherent inadequacy of knowledge, then a supranatural being or consciousness would be necessary to do it. Sucks...I know. There are no privileged reference points.

Well, lets use the process of elimination. You haven't been praying on sunday with your friends to gravity, relativity, or stuff, so we can rule that out. If my hypothesis is correct, you things other than what was previously mentioned.

Religious people get together for religious events because religion has a very high social construct. Science is not really a social subject unless being taught or studied. Which is more along the lines or a work environment.

Gravity does not mean what goes up must go down. That is the case to us, but the theory of gravity says nothing of the like. It says that every particle attracts every other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them. If you want to seem more intelligent that a believer, you should put the correct theory in your comic. I cant believe i am the 1st one to say this out of 50+ comments

for fucks sake, cut this shit out. /r/atheism isnt even about atheism anymore. its a huge circlejerk talking shit about other peoples beliefs. so someone else in this world of billions of people believes in something you dont? big deal. everybody has faith in something, everybody. there are way more important issues you could be discussing, but youd rather put people down on facebook and post it here. earth can be a pretty fucked up place at times. it doesnt surprise me that people want something to believe in. live how you want, but dont try to impose that onto the others. bring on the downvotes.

You can no more let a faith based society loaded with nuclear weapons get involved in foreign policy, than you can hand a toddler a gun, these ideas are dangerous, so how dare you say that these beliefs do not deminish or effect us, the effects are every where we've been soaked in blood for centuries over this foolishness, so i will not politely respect religion to its face while a raging inferno rushes to meet me in my home

so why not post a topic for discussion about the separation of church and state, a topic that people will be able to hold an intellectual discussion about, rather than "hey look at this dumb christian and the dumb things they do"?

The idea that atheists don't need belief is stupid. From an epistemological standpoint, all of science is built around the fallacy of induction, so we can't be certain that any scientific facts are always going to be true. Nonetheless we have faith that they will remain true because they've held up for so long. Granted it's not exactly the same thing as religious faith, all areas of human knowledge require some element of faith.

(By the way, I'm an atheist, but I'm also a mathematician and philosopher so claims like this really bother me.)

From an epistemological standpoint, all of science is built around the fallacy of induction, so we can't be certain that any scientific facts are always going to be true. Nonetheless we have faith that they will remain true because they've held up for so long.

Not only is this is an extremely narrow view of what "science" is, it is incorrect. Science does not say that we can be "certain" that any scientific facts are always going to be true. An attitude that says with complete certainty that the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot ever be violated is not scientific, for example. Who knows what we will discover? However, we had better have some strong evidence to change our minds about what we have discovered.

What science requires is an attitude of investigation, rather than conclusion. Its epistemology is one of probability rather than certainty. Nothing is ever completely certain, but some things can be determined to be more likely than others.

in other words, we put a limited amount of faith in our current understanding (while not holding it as 'gospel truth') and use that to gain more understanding and help validate what we already consider 'might' be true

You can call it a "limited amount of faith," but I don't think it is actually a difference of degree that separates religious faith, and scientific confidence. I believe these to be human psychological phenomena which differ in kind.

Fallacy of induction. Really. For a philosopher you sure seem to be woefully underinformed of the philosophy of science. Poplerian Falsificationism, my friend, does not rest at all on the 'fallacy' of induction, but stands as a direct answer to that problem.

This has been the standard for science for decades now.

All science says is 'this is what was observed. This is what we predict based on what's observed. This is what would demonstrate those predictions wrong. Upon receiving data that falsifies our predictions, we shall update our predictions to also predict the cases where the old ones went wrong."

And thusly does Newtonian Mechanics give way to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Etc., etc., etc..

Now, you can of course go on to demand that knowledge be absolute to qualify as knowledge. And I will be free to dismiss your epistemology as infantile, if you do.

Falsificationist view of scientific inquiry does not involve induction in any step. .

All it requires is rejecting hypothesis already proven to be wrong. That can be done deductivelly - what follows from a bunch of hypothesis -> is it the case. What this has problems with is why one is supposed to stick with the existing theory rather than any other one that also hasn't been proven wrong. Perhaps occam's razor saves you to a point. Another is that you might be faulting the wrong postulate - since any test can only test all the premises at once, not each individually. But a bunch of tests testing various sets of premises can allow you to triangulate on the wrong one.

But in any case, in scientific practice, apparently you do get ppl choosing basically by taste when you have two theories, both fitting the evidence, without either being obviously more convoluted version of the other. String theory discussion seems like that - no predictions distinct from (certain) other theories or tweaks of the standard model, yet both sides can claim occam's razor would favour them.

And a philosophy of science is prob better off thinking about what science is in practice, than creating a rational reconstruction of what the process is and how is it justified - since it simply evolved through trial and error. Eg I gather the criteria for discovery in particle physics changed to 5 sigma from 3 sigma when some particle that was 'discovered' turned out to be just a statistical fluke...

If natural laws changed, discovering that would be a scientific achievement. And there was some investigations whether the constants of nature are indeed constant.

So even in this sense, that still needs no belief.

Ofc any individual prob believes bunch of stuff on insufficient evidence, or is even in contradiction w him/herself etc. But that's another matter entirely.

EDIT: and in any case, aren't there some bayesian arguments to justify induction? I was listening to a lecture series on philosophy of science. prob a reason why I'm an atheist and a sceptic. But I'm afraid I don't remember enough from the lectures on the bayesianism, <EDIT2>except that it was basically giving a statistical argument for an inductive way (rather than say hume's hypothetical counterinductive way) of thinking, and one guaranteeing ppl will converge on the same conclusion, in principle and given infinite time and quantities of evidence ofc, but still...</EDIT2>

Youre reading too much into it. It shouldn't bother you, because it's absolutely right. Also, you forget a key point: if gravity all of a sudden proves wrong and something goes back up after coming down, then scientists will do research and make a new theory. In religion, once people notice the bible has many very immoral psalms and what not including rape, sexism, and slavery, they have to be stubborn and argue about it rather than rewriting it, and then the bible wouldn't be important if it was rewritten by modern day humans.

Came here to write this. Also worth pointing out that broadly, knowledge seems to be something like justified true belief, although there's all sorts of arguments over that. But to write off belief so quickly is foolish.

i'm convinced repost complaining is a symptom reddit addiction. they're not mad about the repost, they're upset about not getting their fix. reddit is so addicting because of the constant novelty. people come here to see whats new, when they don't get it, they complain.

Well put. Religion and science aren't in a zero sum game for the possession of truth. They're not even really playing the same game. It's when people try to make religion play the science game, and vice versa, that things get out of hand.

The reason we have faith is because we believe in things that cannot be fully perceived or understood. We can only fully perceive things that are natural (able to be explained by science), not things that are super-natural (things that cannot be explained by science) thus we must have faith.

Truth requires belief when the truth is beyond our ability to understand.

Because there are somethings in this world that cannot be explained by science, such as the existence of nature in the first place. We can not explain everything in nature through science, but we cannot explain why nature exists. We also cannot explain right and wrong through science.

On the other hand, atheists look insecure for creating a group online where they insult those who hold to different viewpoints and post quotes about how wonderful science and rationality are (as though only atheists can make claims to being scientific or rational).

We do have faith. We have faith in natural law. I certainly have not done even a billionth of the experiments necessary to prove science beyond a reasonable doubt in my own eyes. I just trust that the chain of scientists that came before me.

"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."

Lately, I've had some success in conversations with theists when I separate faith and fact. I will not argue another person's belief that does not interfere unjustly with me. It's not my place, and no matter how ridiculous I might find the belief to be it is in fact still their belief. At the same time I cannot simply believe in something for its own sake. In recent arguments regarding atheism/theism I have used this approach, expressed to the theist that no matter how great it might be, I cannot honestly will myself to believe something. Mostly, people seem to understand unless they're completely closed minded and ignorant. The trick is to not belittle the theist or their theism, and don't try to explain why you lost your belief (if you were previously a theist), just stick to talking about what you are/believe today.

Nobody who has faith that a teapot orbits Mars or that elves frolic with unicorns in the moonlight has ever tried to control who I can consent to having sex with or what plants or chemicals I can ingest. People with faith in a god and organized religion, on the other hand...

It's really important to look at the context of the religious person's activity in the world. Mr. Rogers and Martin Luther King and Reverend Tutu were great men whose great accomplishments were rooted in their faith but Jerry Falwell and Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI) and Ali Khamenei are nothing but scumbag snake oil salesmen and the world would have been better off without them and their ilk.

well maybe they would if going to science camp would get you laid. :) (or maybe it does...i don't know what goes on at conferences....ohh wikipedia says:
"the symposium (Greek συμπόσιον symposion, from συμπίνειν sympinein, "to drink together") was a drinking party"

so in those circles is hotness more a function of brain size than other things? :) (i'm imagining that scene where human bender gets all the scientists to party and it's not pretty) the closest one i could find was this

I find this example somewhat ironic. We know that things fall on earth to the ground, and that objects attact each other depending on mass. But what exactly is gravity? We knw what it is not. It is not electro-magnitism.
But what is 'gravity' exactly? what is its nature? Isaac Newton described the effects of gravity but could explain what it "is".
Only Einstein centruies later postulated about the nature of Gravity: He envisioned gravity as a curvature of space-time caused by the matter in it, as opposed to Newton’s idea of a force acting at a distance. Although objects try to move through space-time in straight lines, this warpage makes their paths appear bent.

So, scientifically, what we believe about gravity is not based on knowing what it is, but believing, or having faith in, Einstein's idea of "a curvature of space-time caused by the matter in it".
Dare I say we have "Faith" that gravity is a "curvature of space-time caused by the matter in it".
Oh the irony!

Although, I understanding the logical reasoning I do not understand the concept of ignorance in faith. Before the LHC fired was there no doubt? Was there not miscalculations and error? Therefore, the faith in the the device's reliability seems as if it was in bad measure, but yet the continued faith of not seeing such a device succeed regardless of the huge risk of catastrophic events that could transpire, we tried again...and it worked. Faith in something does not constitute a complete understanding of something. Accepting ignorance and proceeding to educate is the best understanding. Always be the child who knows not.
Then, open your mind further to what you do not know...this is how science happens. Someone goes "I wonder how" or "I need to" and figures a solution to their/others dilemma. Although, many religions use God as a conduit of their own free will and do awful things in the name of the religion, it does not mean that one could not be correct and in fighting against religions rather than trying to understand I think many are mislead into a tremendously more negative lifestyle. I have many atheist friends in one circle...and this is what is done during the day: "Let's find something on religion we can bad-mouth and let's attack one of our friends about their religion" (me included) I find myself opposing athiests in defense more than anything else. Why is that? Why is such a confident "knowledgeable" lot so eager to bash/hate a belief system with such strong arrogant faith that there is no god, yet condemn the same faith for believing in one?

The premise of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim ethic seems to be based on the faith that God is jealous as hell of other Gods and will send you to hell for eternity if you don't worship Him and only Him. And that part of worshiping the old bastard is you have to capitalize any name and pronoun when directly referring to him in writing.

I disagree. I have been an atheist for years and thought I had no faith, that the word is only for superstitious people. But if you realize that the definition is 'complete trust and/or confidence in something or someone', you can apply it even to science. I have faith in the validity of empirical evidence, inductive reasoning and in the law of non-contradiction. I guess it all depends on how you define the word.

So why should I choose to believe (yeah, believe) in this "science" thing rather than god? They are both same to me, I can read about em on books and there are people (ministers and teachers) who supposedly are professional about these things who tell me about them, but I really have no evidence one way or the other.

Bible says god did it, my science book talks about electrons and shit but I have never seen an electron, or photon, or any of those things. Am I not being asked to just trust what supposedly smarter people tell me and pretty much take it all on faith, just as with god?

Well, you could read up about it yourself (whichever particular matter of "science" that strikes your curiosity). But as regards to sub-atomic field (the "electrons and shit" of which you speak) you'd have to have a minimum level of intelligence and reading comprehension to make your way through a paper in a scientific Journal on this subject. These papers are peer-reviewed, so it's not just some commentator writing some opinions about whatever. And their findings have been repeated and verified by others.

Trusting the scientific community (as a whole) is not the same thing as having faith in the absolute infallibity of Biblical tracts written thousands of years ago by storytellers.

The difference between science and faith is that science is testable. You (if you were so inclined) could do the experiments, yourself, that support or disprove the existence of electrons. That's the way science works. If you managed to disprove the existence of electrons, conclusively, then the textbooks would be rewritten, and scientists would go on to prove or disprove the next theory.

Do you really expect me to actually go through the troble of testing and proving every single scientific theory and thus acquire the knowledge that it's the truth? That's hardly reasonable, I am forced to take science on faith.

1st: "Truth does not demand belief"
The problem here is, that science is not "think of something, test it = truth/untruth in most cases (espacially here). To date scientists and physicists all around the world calculate and think with so many unproven factors, that even if they find something plausible, they will still have to "believe" that this is or atleast could be the truth.

Obviously whoever said that (if he ever did) never witnessed a true believer. Everyone (including atheists) will tell you, that these people are as sure as you can be. They KNOW, that there is a god and don't question. That is a problem sometimes, and pointing that out would be a valid point, but saying they are unsure just shows, someone without any knowledge of religion asid this.

This formula doesn't accurately predict orbit of planet Mercury. It would be more accurate to use Albert Einstein's (theist for the record) General Relativity formula which doesn't explain why galaxies are not disintegrating apart while space is expanding with acceleration. Scientists created concept of dark energy and dark matter which is not really better then concept of god.

We all know he is a theist but the point of this is that he doesn't act in the way he did about science how he did religion. Yes i am fully aware of that and i am also aware of M theory etc and correct they are un-testable and therefore are not better than the concept of GOD however the behaviour is totally different look at the investment of time and money for these physics theories. They dont just meet up and have faith they say it could be this lets find a way of measuring/testing it.

Well, didn't Einstein say many times "God doesn't play dice with the world" regarding quantum mechanics? But seriously, look at a bigger picture, religions, philosophy, sciences, they all very similar. Science just happen to start giving better, more accurate explanations and fairly recently in history because it evolves faster. There's no need to antagonize science and religion, they are not mutually exclusive.

You'd actually be surprised about the belief required in the theory of gravity. Gravitons are very obscure particles that drive gravitational force in physics that most physicists believe in, but not all. Eh...

Well, if gravity was proven to be generated by some cosmic sentient being, and gravity's strength depended on how he was feeling, then maybe I'd get together once a week to sing to him. But otoh, that would be a sucky universe to live in, because you'd never really know if he was pleased, or would someday get bored, and so you'd be all paranoid hoping gravity wouldnt suddenly change on you anyway.

I can't find the source, but I remember reading a letter from Einstein to a girl in and English textbook when I was in high school about a sort of faith in the fact the the laws of science are unchanging, that physics won't suddenly change. I wish I could find that letter, it's and interesting and true concept.

I'm reading his book right now. It's a fascinating book, well read, well thought out, well said. I recommend everyone to read it, theist or no theist. :D
Book is called godless, in case anyone was wondering.

No one argues whether gravity exists. It's not a matter of faith. We all observe it.

I understand the need to correct those who use the phrase "just a theory" when referring to science. But let's try to understand what scientific theories are first before correcting others.

There are actually multiple theories of gravity and no firm consensus. General relativity calls for the curvature of spacetime—a concept that is not universally accepted, as many physicists insist that space is flat and gravitation is a force. There are debates about the existence of gravitons, and there are competing quantum gravity theories such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, supergravity, and many others.

Of course gravity is real. You don't need to be a scientist to accept that fact. However, since there are several theories of gravity, many people do, in fact, choose which one to believe. There simply isn't enough evidence yet to confirm which theory is most likely correct. This includes general relativity. Even NASA's Gravity Probe experiments are debated by physicists as to whether they constitute evidence of spacetime curvature.

Let me be very blunt about the matter because there seems to be a constant level of confusion circulating the atmosphere. Religion is an old concept, You simply can not believe in this mumbo because it takes the human eye off the ball, and it focuses our energies and our sensibilities on something that is make believe, you know utterly false. This in turn translates into a false relationship in self, how can you know or respect yourself if you are allowing your brain to believe the Earth was created in 6 days. No sir if you think this way you need to have your head examined that is all there is to it, there is far to much proof that religion is more like a grand hoax than a way to focus chi or obtain happiness or whatever the fuck you think it is religion gives you, its just a big joke and the longer you go on believing this ridiculous crap from thousands of years ago we will all politely stand and wait for you with our mouths hanging to the ground, hoping like hell you would just STOP stretching the binds of physics and reality to believe in your stupid little dream that we grow steadily tired of, why cant you just give it up and move on like a rational human?

This is one of the funniest things I've seen on this site! It's a shame the humor is lost on the people who enjoy this quote the most. Ironically, people who are insecure about their beliefs are the ones beating everyone over the heads with them. The difference between a bible thumper and and bible basher is becoming harder and harder to distinguish. It's one of the most hypocritical things I've seen. You're both annoying as hell (or whatever is equivalent to atheists). Quit whining, claiming superior intellect (assuming science compliments atheism... when actually it's represented through agnostic principles), berating/marginalizing, and most of all instigating. Both sides are like a bunch of 7 year olds. One side provokes the other until they lash out, then claims they are hypocritical for doing it. I'm tired of my front page of reddit filled with whinny babble. Shut your mouth, suck it up, and agree to disagree.

Truth may require faith. Truth is supported by axiomatic systems which are themselves incomplete. These systems cannot be used to prove themselves.

As far as scientists and physicists go -- there is a very large amount of faith involved in most sciences. Almost every scientist takes a great deal of things on faith (such as inertia). At the root of every system of theories are things we have to simply accept as true.

You can make any number of arguments as to the methods used, or the likelihood of this or that -- but to say that science or physics requires no faith is just naive.

Yes, people have faith and meet to agree on religion stuff because they are insecure about how it could be true...because it doesn't make much sense. But some people need these beliefs as a crutch and they need faith in order to have those beliefs. Young people without many serious challenges in their lives don't feel a need for a crutch like this. It's a shame sometimes to see these young atheists trying to kick the crutches out from under Christian folks.